|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 100 of 624:
| 
Dec 29 09:12 UTC 1996 |
Hm. I'm not sure that's a valid argument either. People of either opinion
can say "if the difference is so trivial, then let's do it my way".
|
remmers
|
|
response 101 of 624:
|
Dec 29 12:23 UTC 1996 |
Considering that the whole purpose of this item is to put this
issue up for a member vote and *not* have it decided
unilaterally by board and/or staff, I don't see how brighn's
"this is a clique run by a bunch of yahoos" accusation makes a
lot of sense. In any case, I hope he reconsiders his decision
about leaving Grex.
I have three questions at this point:
(1) What's the current wording of the proposal?
(2) What is the effect if the proposal passes?
(3) What is the effect if the proposal fails?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 102 of 624:
|
Dec 29 16:12 UTC 1996 |
Popcorn--true. But, there are other arguments in favor of allowing anonymous
reading, such as the argument that grex's purpose is to allow the free
exchange of information. Are there arguments against allowing anonymous
reading that are not based on the 'trivial difference' between anonymous and
unverified users?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 103 of 624:
|
Dec 29 16:57 UTC 1996 |
Re 101: The current wording is in response #5. It says: "Anonymous reading
of all public conferences on Grex via the World Wide Web is permitted."
If it passes, then it's okay for Jan and Steve to turn on anonymous reading
in Backtalk and for you to use your script that puts makes conferences into
web pages. And for anybody else to put Grex conferences on the web.
If it fails, it's sort of unspecified what happens with anonymous web reading
of conferences, but presumably it's not allowed.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 104 of 624:
|
Dec 29 17:07 UTC 1996 |
John -- I think the discussion of this issue is still too active to put it
to a vote yet. I'd like to extend the discussion period for a few more days.
In which case I'd like to extend the discussion period for item 26, too, so
the two votes run for the same 10 days, rather than asking people to vote
twice in quick succession. Is that okay? Also, is there anything I should
do, as a staffer, to get the vote program ready to use? Or is that something
you've got all set up and ready to go? Thanks....
|
remmers
|
|
response 105 of 624:
|
Dec 29 19:43 UTC 1996 |
There's nothing in the bylaws that says you can't have votes on
two proposals running simultaneously. I'd interpret the bylaws
as allowing the proposer some discretion in just when to make
the proposal formal and start the vote -- the discussion period
can't be shorter than two weeks, but could be longer.
If the two votes run simultaneously, I'll have to set up two
differently-configured versions of the vote program. No big
deal; easy enough to do.
On reflection, I guess I do have some concerns about the
current wording, especially given the fact, that's been pointed
out several times, that the word "anonymous" is ambiguous
and subject to varying interpretations. If the intent is that
people without login id's on Grex be permitted read-only access
to all conferences, then the proposal should say so clearly
and unambiguously.
Your mention of the program I wrote, pre-Backtalk, to convert
conferences to html and make them available for web viewing
reminds me that this proposal doesn't address one of the issues
that was of concern to people in the earlier discussion about
that program. My program, as written, would allow conference
items to be discovered by web spiders and indexed by search
engines such as Altavista. There was considerable sentiment
expressed that accountless web reading of conferences would
be okay as long as items didn't get indexed by search engines,
but would be objectionable if it did. The proposal as currently
worded permits both, so people who are in favor of accountless
reading through Backtalk (which probably won't get indexed)
might still want to vote against the proposal because it would
allow a less restrictive form of web access to conferences to
which they object.
Then there's the question of what it means if the proposal is
defeated. Kind of leaves things in limbo, which is why I raised
the question of what defeat would mean. Doesn't say you can
have accountless reading, but doesn't say you can't either.
I have a feeling that people would like the issue definitely
settled one way or the other. Maybe that could be addressed by
reversing the sense of the proposal.
|
davel
|
|
response 106 of 624:
|
Dec 29 20:20 UTC 1996 |
All good points, John. (Though perhaps Valerie would be uncomfortable being
the official proposer of a proposal to limit web access to Grex ...)
|
robh
|
|
response 107 of 624:
|
Dec 29 21:14 UTC 1996 |
I wouldn't! Lemme at it! >8)
One possible compromise - when I was looking at the River's web pages,
I saw that a few of their conferences had been designated as open
access, i.e. Web users could access those conferences to get some
idea what the place was like. Would that be acceptable here? Intro
and Agora would be the obvious choices, of course. And then confs
like Sexuality and Recovery could still maintain as much control
over the distribution of their content as they currently do.
|
bruin
|
|
response 108 of 624:
|
Dec 29 23:04 UTC 1996 |
IMHO, brighn will be back sooner than we think.
|
robh
|
|
response 109 of 624:
|
Dec 30 01:16 UTC 1996 |
I dunno about that. And I don't think he'll be the only one
to leave, if this passes.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 110 of 624:
|
Dec 30 06:17 UTC 1996 |
Re 105: That makes sense. New wording:
"The contents of Grex's public conferences may be published on the web in
such a way that they can be read by people who do not have Grex accounts.
These web publications may be set up in such a way that they may be indexed
by databases such as AltaVista."
Re 105/106: I don't have a very strong opinion on this subject, even though
I'm the one who put the proposal up for a vote. If the proposal doesn't
pass, I'll be happy to propose the opposite proposal.
Re 109: Rob, are you saying that you would leave? Or that you would expect
other people to leave? I'm still working on understanding your viewpoint on
this issue.
|
janc
|
|
response 111 of 624:
|
Dec 30 06:31 UTC 1996 |
"May be"? So if this passes and I never get around to turning on anonymous
access, that would be OK?
|
davel
|
|
response 112 of 624:
|
Dec 30 13:56 UTC 1996 |
I don't have a problem with *that* "may be", Jan - I don't think we should
require you to do it. But I'd rather see the second sentence go the other
way - "Such web publications must be set up in such a way as to discourage
indexing by databases such as AltaVista." or something like that.
|
robh
|
|
response 113 of 624:
|
Dec 30 13:59 UTC 1996 |
Re 110 - That would be a "yes" to both. I just got mail from
yet another person who's leaving the conferences because of this
discussion. Myself, I won't leave as long as there's a chance
this stupid thing won't pass. If and when it becomes a part of
the by-laws... I didn't want to say this, for fear it would
be perceived as a threat. But I refuse to enforce such a rule,
and if that means leaving the Board, then that's what I'll do.
And I refuse to comply with such a rule, so I'll have to leave
the staff as well.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 114 of 624:
|
Dec 30 14:38 UTC 1996 |
Wowch, Rob. I know you've been asked this to death, but could you explain
one more time, what's so wrong with people-who-don't-have-accounts reading
Grex's conferences? I'm thinking people's views toward anonymous reading must
somehow come from some basic part of their outlook on the world, something
so basic that it's too basic for them to mention here. Or something. Because
this feels like the abortion debate, in that people on each side of the
discussion think the arguments of the other side make no sense, but then when
you start examining the underlying assumptions it mostly goes back to whether
or not you believe a fetus is a human being and whether sex is a very serious
undertaking or a fun activity to play with. I'm thinking there must be some
kind of basic underlying assumptions in this discussion, too, that we haven't
yet identified. I think if anybody stands a chance of explaining the
reasoning behind why anonymous reading is a bad idea, you do, Rob.
Incidentally, the whole question of anonymous reading really isn't very
important to me. Having Rob around here is more important to me than
anonymous reading. So I'm not going to submit this for a vote.
|
robh
|
|
response 115 of 624:
|
Dec 30 15:14 UTC 1996 |
Eep, that's just what I was afraid of. Come on, Valerie, if
I can't argue against this on its own merits, I certainly don't
want it decided by that.
I've been coming to much the same conclusion, given that all four
of the people who have opposed the idea - myself, brighn, selena,
and jenna - are neo-Pagans, or at least very pagan-friendly in
jenna's case. I think the basic problem is one of symbolism,
i.e. there's little techinical difference between anonymous accees
via Backtalk vs. running newuser and jumping right into it; but
the act of running newuser is at least a symbolic gesture of
joining the "community" here, in a way that Websurfing is not.
Does that make some sense? I'd ask brighn if he agrees, but we
may have to wait a while. >8)
|
remmers
|
|
response 116 of 624:
|
Dec 30 15:39 UTC 1996 |
Just a few years ago Grex took a huge step in opening up access,
a step that I think is substantially more radical than what is
being proposed here. Namely, it went from being local-dialup
only to being a node on the internet, accessible by anyone with
a telnet client anywhere in the world. It seems to me that all
of the arguments being made here against accountless web access
could have been made against that move too, perhaps even more
strongly. But interestingly, nobody did so. Does anybody here
feel that in retrospect, Grex made a wrong move and should have
remained a local bbs?
Ironically, three of the four opponents mentioned in #115
wouldn't be here at all if Grex hadn't made that huge step of
opening up access a few years ago. Yet they're so opposed to
what I think is really a much smaller step. Doesn't make sense
to me. There's a discussion item in the poetry cf. where I go
on at greater length about this. I won't repeat all that here,
but have a look if you're interested.
Guess this is all kinda moot if the proposal isn't going to be
submitted for a vote. This means the issue is left unsettled,
which is maybe too bad. But the final wording would have left
it unsettled anyway if it had passed. :/ Well, at least this
outcome proves that you don't have to be a paying member to have
influence.
So now where are we?
|
dang
|
|
response 117 of 624:
|
Dec 30 16:00 UTC 1996 |
Regardless, I would vote against the proposal as most recently stated by
Valerie. I have no strong feelings either way about anonymous access via
Backtalk. However, I really feel that the conferences should *not* be
accessed via webcrawlers.
RE: vote: I people want, I can propose the opposite. Really, the opposite
is a better vote anyway. If it fails, then presumably access is allowed, and
if it passes, access is not allowed.
|
janc
|
|
response 118 of 624:
|
Dec 30 19:35 UTC 1996 |
Any member can call a vote. So Valerie isn't deciding anything by not calling
a vote, except that she personally isn't prepared to push this.
This discussion is revealing some deep differences in the way people think
about Grex and what they want from Grex. There are plainly some issues coming
up that we aren't fully understanding or communicating about yet. I think
until we really understand what the disagreement is about, it would be
premature to call a vote.
Personally, I'm beginning to feel that it is better for people to pass through
some kind of "doorway" when entering Grex. You check in at newuser before
getting on for the first time, you enter a login and password before accessing
much of anything serious. It's not a question of anonymity or security or
openness. The doorways are open. Anyone can go through them taking on any
name they like.
But even wide open doorways still serve an important psychological purpose.
When I surf the web, I flit from web page to web page, often unaware of what
country any particular page is in, much less what computer system it is on.
There are no boundaries. There is no sense of place. And I have no
identity there, I just waft through.
That's a different feeling than when I log onto a system. When I log onto
a system I take a conscious step to enter a particular place and take on a
particular identity in that place. I'm beginning to believe that that may
be an important defining moment for how people perceive and interact with
Grex.
We really aren't talking hard logic and technology here. It's a matter of
feelings. It's like the observation that people are less likely to litter
if you keep it looking neat. Neatness doesn't prevent littering. It's just
as easy to drop a cigarette butt on a clean floor as a dirty one. It's not
logical, but it works. Sure, people can be just as anonymous after running
newuser than before, but they feel less anonymous both to themselves and to
others. The fact that everyone reading here has gone through that does
change the feeling of Grex.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 119 of 624:
|
Dec 31 01:58 UTC 1996 |
Sorry, despite all the highly emotionally charged language of
doorways and psychological purposes and defining perceptive and
interactive moments, I still see this as clubishness. Maybe even
cliquishness. Grex should remain as open as feasible.
The first clue that there isn't a good reason behind all this
drama to keep newuser as a gatekeeper is when folks can't come
up with much more than they'll leave if it doesn't go their way.
Although I'll admit, reading janc's last response was a whole lot of
fun.
I'd rather we work at keeping Grex as wide open and accessible
as possible even if that means losing a few folks who
feel their clubhouse has been violated. They will be missed,
for sure, but I bet we'd also gain a few newusers who otherwise
wouldn't find us.
|
sidekick
|
|
response 120 of 624:
|
Dec 31 15:32 UTC 1996 |
I'm siding with Jenna and Robh, I think. If somebody wants to
"visit" the confrences on Grex, it only takes a few minutes to creat an
account. I don't mind of Grexers see the stuff I post... I just don't
like the idea that anybody who wants to can see it can do so
without having any kind of real connection to Grex.
A login isn't much of a connection, I realize, but at least when people
create an account, I feel that it *does* tie them to the system much
more than simply viewing a confrence, then leaving.
|
remmers
|
|
response 121 of 624:
|
Dec 31 22:39 UTC 1996 |
If you join the poetry conference and type "participant" at the OK
prompt, you'll see a list of all login id's that currently exist and that
joined the poetry conference at least once. I tried it and got a list
of about 150 id's. I'm sure that the vast majority of those are people
who simply viewed the conference once and then left. I'm also sure
that if it were possible to see the id's that have been reaped and that
joined the conference at least once, you get a much longer list.
Those aren't folks who were "tied to the system" in any siginificant
way.
In other words, the situation that people say they want to avoid by
disallowing accountless read-only web access *already exists*. And
is it a problem? I don't think so -- it's how Grex's conference get
their activie participants.
I said it before but I'll say it again: I don't understand what all the fuss
is about.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 122 of 624:
|
Dec 31 22:52 UTC 1996 |
I can work myself into the paranoid state of worrying about anonymous
readers, but I agree with remmers that we have always hasd them, and there
has been no demonstrated negative consequences. In the absence of the problem
with existing anonymous readers that log in, I am willing to venture to allow
anonymous readers that don't log in. If we then can demonstrate some problems,
the problem can be discussed and solved.
|
dpc
|
|
response 123 of 624:
|
Dec 31 23:22 UTC 1996 |
I agree with Valerie that these are deep waters. I personally would
have voted against the proposal (I *think*), if only because I, too,
would rather not press the issue if it means Grexers bailing out.
Now what?
|
mta
|
|
response 124 of 624:
|
Jan 1 00:59 UTC 1997 |
Hmmm. I'd have been in favour of this, but like Valerie, I want to know
what's really going on first. I agree that it seems to be a very heartfelt
issue, which I can't understand quite. Before deciding finally I'd want to
really understand the reasoning of those who feel so strongly against it.
But like Mary, if in the end it comes down to cliquishness, I would
regretfully vote in favour of it knowing I might lose contact with some fine
people by so doing.
*sigh*
|